NYC's Soda Ban Is A Good Idea, But A Tax Would Be Better

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 24: Lisa Young, PhD, a researcher on portion sizes, adjunct professor at New York University and author of the Portion Teller Plan, speaks in support of a proposed soda ban. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Earlier today, the New York City Board of Health voted unanimously to approve Mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban on sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces at any establishment that receives a grade from the health department. Absent a court ruling, the ban will take effect in six months.

Members of virtually every major constituency, from Republican politicians to The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, have vociferously objected to the Mayor's plan. A recent New York Timespoll found that 60% of participants objected to the so-called "soda ban." The disapproval is both widespread and geographically diverse: the same poll revealed majority opposition in each of New York City's five boroughs.

There's only one problem. The pundits, politicians, and populace are wrong. Like it or not, the soda ban is a good idea.

Over the past three decades, obesity has become a massive problem in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) recently published obesity map (scroll to the bottom) offers a frightening look at U.S. obesity trends. Whether or not you consider obesity a disease or a disorder, rising rates of Type II diabetes and other obesity-linked complications threaten the long-term economic health of our country.

Something must be done.

My dad, a pediatric endocrinologist who has seen childhood obesity soar in his clinic over the past thirty years, has long referred to sugary drinks as "empty calories." He's right. Soda and other sweetened beverages are luxury items that offer no nutritional benefit to the consumer. Even the food at McDonald's offers modest nutrition at a low price -- a defensible value proposition, especially for low-income individuals. Soda proponents can make no such claim.

So although I support Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban, my preference would be for a common sense, albeit politically impossible solution: a soda tax.

The industry's powerful lobby quickly quashed efforts to include a soda tax in President Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA), thereby eliminating a major potential source of funding and forcing greater cuts to Medicare. Politics also doomed Mayor Bloomberg's initial proposal for a soda tax, which I think of as "the plan before the ban."

The idea of a special tax on luxury, whether real or perceived, isn't revolutionary. Consider New York's "mansion tax," which requires homebuyers to pay an additional 1% sales tax on any dwelling that costs more than $1 million. Anyone familiar with New York City real estate knows that $1 million hardly buys a mansion, yet the law hasn't led to criticism on Comedy Central. Although I realize the potential influence of socioeconomic factors on public opinion, the two taxes are conceptually identical.

Opponents of the soda ban tend to highlight the law's restrictions on freedom of choice, while bemoaning an inevitable Bloomberg "nanny state." This view has serious flaws. First, choice has always been restricted by industry, yet no one objected to the far smaller portion sizes common in the 1980s or lobbied for the freedom to supersize. Second, the ban is far from comprehensive. New Yorkers most often purchase sugary beverages in the grocery store, at a corner bodega, or a chain convenience store. None of these establishments are currently subject to the soda ban.